Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 36 references

Field evaluation of a wearable instrumented headband designed for measuring head kinematics

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-04 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read This paper claims that a five-sensor instrumented headband, previously validated in the lab, can capture some head kinematics of soccer headers under real field conditions, with time-history agreement ranging from 'good' to 'excellent' for

desk verdict A modest, clearly-reported field validation of a previously developed headband, with the expected caveat that the mouthpiece reference is not ground truth and the sample is one subject. read the letter →

arxiv 2509.09842 v1 pith:27EZMHHD submitted 2025-09-11 eess.SP physics.med-ph

Anu Tripathi , Yang Wan , Zhiren Zhu , Furkan Camci , Sheila Turcsanyi , Jeneel Pravin Kachhadiya , Mauricio Araiza Canizales , Alison Brooks
show 6 more authors
Haneesh Kesari Joseph Andrews Traci Snedden Peter Ferrazzano Christian Franck Rika Wright Carlsen
This is my paper · ORCID
classification eess.SPphysics.med-ph
keywords mildtraumaticbraininjuryinstrumentedheadbandsoccerheadersfieldvalidationheadkinematicsangularvelocitytranslationalaccelerationwearablesensors
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

The paper evaluates an instrumented headband worn by a human soccer player heading balls from throw-ins, goal-kicks, and corner-kicks, comparing its reconstructed head kinematics to those from an instrumented mouthpiece worn simultaneously. Time-history agreement (CORA scores) was 'good' to 'excellent' for angular velocity (0.79±0.08) and 'good' for translational acceleration (0.73±0.05), but only 'fair' to 'good' for angular acceleration (0.62–0.67). Peak-value agreement was weaker: the headband over-predicted peak angular velocity by 40.9% and peak linear acceleration by 16.6% on average, and under-predicted peak angular acceleration by 14.1%. The paper concludes that the headband can be used in field studies for selected kinematic measures and impact conditions, but not interchangeably with a mouthpiece.

What carries the argument

The headband integrates five triaxial inertial measurement units around the occipital region. Angular velocity is reconstructed by averaging the five gyroscope signals and applying a continuous-wavelet-transform-based adaptive filter that selects a per-impact cutoff frequency to remove transient sensor noise while preserving the true signal. Angular and translational acceleration are computed either by differentiating the filtered angular velocity or by the A3G1 algorithm, which solves a rigid-body algebraic system using three accelerometers and one gyroscope to avoid noise amplification from differentiation. Agreement with the mouthpiece is quantified with CORA scores for time histories and

What would settle it

Run the same 18-header protocol with the athlete also tracked by high-speed biplanar radiography or a skull-pin-mounted reference; if the mouthpiece deviates from that reference by as much as the headband deviates from the mouthpiece, the reported headband agreement is not established.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the instrumented headband, when evaluated on a human soccer player under realistic field conditions, achieves good time-history agreement with a reference instrumented mouthpiece for angular velocity (CORA = 0.79±0.08) and translational acceleration (CORA = 0.73±0.05), while angular acceleration agreement is lower (0.67±0.06 with an algebraic A3G1 method, 0.62±0.08 with numerical differentiation). Peak kinematics, however, show substantial bias: mean bias reached 40.9% of the maximum mouthpiece reading for angular velocity, 16.6% for translational acceleration, and -14.1% for angular acceleration. The paper argues the headband is suitable for field deployment when t

Load-bearing premise

The evaluation assumes the instrumented mouthpiece yields accurate skull kinematics; the paper itself notes that mouthpieces are not ground truth, can move with the mandible, and the specific mouthpiece has not been cadaver-validated, so a biased reference would misstate the headband's true accuracy.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • For large-cohort soccer studies that need angular velocity and linear acceleration time histories, the headband may be sufficient, since CORA scores above 0.7 indicate good waveform agreement.
  • Peak-based injury-risk metrics should not be derived from the current headband: the 40.9% peak angular-velocity bias exceeds what interchangeable-sensor studies typically accept.
  • The A3G1 algebraic method improves angular-acceleration time-history agreement (0.67 vs 0.62) but worsens peak bias (-445 vs -135 rad/s²), so method choice depends on whether peaks or waveforms matter more.
  • The lab-to-field drop in filter cutoff frequency (126±50 Hz to 56±33 Hz) shows that lab validation alone is insufficient; field-specific filtering or hardware changes are needed.
  • Headband fit, hair and soft-tissue coupling, and pre-impact head motion are identified as main causes of the field performance gap.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The 41% peak-velocity bias suggests the headband is currently unsuitable for computing brain-strain surrogates in individual impacts; even if time histories look similar, peak errors of this size will propagate nonlinearly into strain estimates.
  • A spring-dashpot correction model, analogous to what prior work applied to skin patches and skull caps, could be fit to the headband-mouthpiece bias and might reduce the peak errors without hardware changes.
  • The A3G1 algorithm's failure to capture peaks in the first ~15 ms after impact hints that the accelerometer signals used in the algebraic solve are themselves contaminated by the same transient noise the wavelet filter removes; testing the algorithm on the unfiltered gyroscope signal could isolate the error source.
  • Evaluating the headband against a second reference (e.g., biplanar video) on the same subject would test whether the mouthpiece or the headband is the larger source of disagreement, a question the current single-reference design cannot answer.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. This paper reports a field evaluation of a five-IMU instrumented headband against a custom instrumented mouthpiece (Wake Forest) on one adult female soccer player performing 18 controlled headers (six throw-ins, six goal-kicks, six corner-kicks). Headband angular velocity is reconstructed by averaging five gyroscopes and adaptive wavelet filtering; angular and translational accelerations are reconstructed using finite differentiation and an algebraic A3G1 algorithm. Agreement is quantified by CORA time-history scores and Bland-Altman peak-bias analyses. The authors report 'good' average CORA scores (angular velocity 0.79±0.08, translational acceleration 0.73±0.05, angular acceleration 0.67±0.06 with A3G1 and 0.62±0.08 with differentiation), but large peak biases: 40.9% normalized mean bias for angular velocity, 16.6% for translational acceleration, and -14.1% (A3G1) or -4.27% (differentiation) for angular acceleration. They conclude that the headband shows reasonable agreement with the mouthpiece for some kinematic measures and impact conditions.

Significance. If the comparison is accepted, this is a useful contribution to the sparse in-vivo validation literature for headband-type sensors. The study is methodical: the processing chain is described in detail, CORA uses recommended parameters, Bland-Altman analyses are standard, and the authors explicitly list limitations (single subject, small sample, mouthpiece not ground truth). The direct comparison with the Wu et al. skull-cap/skin-patch data is informative, and the paper follows CHAMP reporting guidelines. The main result—good time-history agreement but non-negligible peak bias—is plausible and actionable for sensor development. However, the strength of the conclusion depends on an uncharacterized reference instrument and on interpreting 'reasonable agreement' in light of the large bias percentages; these issues need to be addressed before the paper can be accepted as a field validation rather than a single-subject feasibility study.

major comments (4)
  1. [§4.5] The paper concedes that mouthpieces are not ground truth, that mandible motion can bias them, and that this specific retainer mouthpiece has been validated only on a clenched-mandible ATD, not a cadaver. This is directly load-bearing because the abstract's conclusion ('reasonable agreement with the mouthpiece') and the discussion's language ('evaluate the headband in measuring the full head kinematics') treat mouthpiece readings as the reference. Without a quantitative bound on reference error, the 40.9% PRV bias could be entirely a mouthpiece artifact, or the true headband error could be larger than reported. I recommend either (a) explicitly reframing the paper as an agreement study between two wearable devices, or (b) adding a quantitative uncertainty analysis using published mouthguard validation data to bound the reference error. The current version overreaches for a validation clai
  2. [§2.5, §3, Fig. 8] The 18 headers are clustered within one subject and one fitting. The paired t-tests applied to header-type subgroups (n=6 each) treat repeated trials as independent, which inflates significance and narrows error bars. The authors correctly acknowledge the sample-size limitation in §4.5, but the inferential statements in §4.2 (e.g., 'not statistically significant') and the header-type comparisons in Fig. 8 should be either removed or replaced with a repeated-measures analysis that accounts for within-subject correlation. At minimum, the paper should state that all p-values are descriptive and not corrected for clustering.
  3. [§3, Fig. 7a, Abstract] The 'reasonable agreement' verdict rests mainly on CORA scores, but CORA is a weighted combination of phase, magnitude, and shape. The Bland-Altman analysis shows a normalized mean bias of 40.9% (3.85 rad/s) for peak angular velocity, with limits of agreement spanning roughly -0.3 to 8.0 rad/s. For the metric most often associated with injury risk, this is a substantial error. The manuscript should state an explicit acceptance threshold or cite one from the head-impact-sensor literature, and discuss how a 40.9% PRV bias would affect brain-strain or injury-risk estimates. Without this, the qualitative conclusion is underdetermined.
  4. [§2.2, §2.4.2, §4.2] The mouthpiece reference angular acceleration is obtained by numerical differentiation of its angular velocity (five-point stencil), while the headband A3G1 result is computed algebraically from accelerometer/gyroscope data. The comparison is therefore asymmetric: the reference itself contains differentiation-amplified noise. The paper notes this in passing, but the CORA and bias results for angular acceleration should also be reported using a common processing path (e.g., differentiating both signals) to separate algorithmic differences from reference-processing artifacts. This is especially important because the A3G1 method is a central novel component.
minor comments (5)
  1. [§2.4.3] Equation (3) is referred to as 'Eq. 2.4.2' in the text; fix the cross-reference.
  2. [§2.5, Fig. 8b] The normalized Bland-Altman bias is computed relative to the maximum mouthpiece reading. Please also report the bias relative to the mean of the paired measurements, and justify the denominator choice; normalization by max can inflate or deflate percentages depending on impact severity.
  3. [§2.4.1] The sensitivity analysis for the t=150 ms end point is only in Supplementary Fig. S1. Please summarize the result in the main text, since the cutoff frequency f0 depends on this choice.
  4. [§4.4] The NRMS comparison with Wu et al. uses different window lengths (24.4 ms vs. the present study's window). State the window length used for the headband NRMS values and confirm the comparison is apples-to-apples.
  5. [§4.2, Fig. 8] p-values are mentioned but not reported for the header-type comparisons; give exact values or confidence intervals in the text or figure.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: headband kinematics are benchmarked against an external instrumented mouthpiece; self-cited processing methods are applied without fitting to the reference data.

full rationale

The paper's claim is an empirical agreement between two independently instrumented devices worn simultaneously. The headband angular velocity is the average of five headband IMUs filtered by an adaptive wavelet cutoff computed from the headband signal itself (Sec. 2.4.1); the angular and translational accelerations are obtained by differentiating that velocity or by solving the rigid-body equations using headband accelerometers (Sec. 2.4.2-2.4.3). No headband parameter is fitted to the mouthpiece output, and the mouthpiece is an external Wake Forest device previously validated by a different group. Self-citations to [19] and [25] provide the processing algorithms, but those algorithms' outputs are not tuned to or defined by the reference measurements; the same methods could have produced poor agreement. The acknowledged limitation in Sec. 4.5 that mouthpieces are not ground truth and have not been cadaver-validated concerns the validity of the external benchmark, not circularity: even a biased reference would not make the headband measurement equal to the reference by construction. No equation in the derivation reduces to another input, and no fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction. Therefore the central comparison is self-contained and non-circular.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 3 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on standard rigid-body kinematics, the validity of the mouthpiece reference, and several hand-chosen parameters in the adaptive filtering pipeline. No new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (3)
  • Wavelet coefficient threshold = 0.1
    The cutoff frequency f0 is determined from where normalized wavelet coefficients cross 0.1 (Section 2.4.1, Eq. 2). This threshold is chosen by hand from prior work and affects the reconstructed kinematics.
  • Steady-state end time point = 150 ms
    The end time for comparing wavelet coefficients to identify noise is set to 150 ms, chosen via a sensitivity analysis (Supplementary Fig. S1). This choice affects the per-impact cutoff frequency.
  • Filter order and upper cutoff limit = 4th order Butterworth, 180 Hz
    The angular velocity is low-pass filtered with a 4th order Butterworth filter and a maximum cutoff of 180 Hz based on SAE J211 (Section 2.4.1, Eq. 2). These parameters shape the reconstructed signal.
assumptions (3)
  • domain assumption The mouthpiece measurements represent true skull kinematics and serve as a valid reference.
    The evaluation uses the Wake Forest instrumented mouthpiece as the reference. Section 4.5 acknowledges that mouthguards are not ground truth and can be affected by mandible motion, and this specific mouthpiece has not been cadaver-validated.
  • domain assumption The head and headband-mounted sensor array behave as a rigid body for the A3G1 algorithm.
    Eq. (3) applies rigid-body acceleration relations to accelerometer locations on a soft, deformable headband. The paper mentions local deformations but does not quantify their effect on the angular acceleration reconstruction.
  • domain assumption Transient noise and steady-state signal can be separated in the wavelet domain using the 0.1 coefficient threshold.
    The adaptive filtering method assumes that signal and noise occupy distinguishable frequency bands. Section 4.1 acknowledges that in field data the signal and noise frequencies overlap, limiting the method's effectiveness.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Field evaluation of a wearable instrumented headband designed for measuring head kinematics." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/27EZMHHD

@misc{pith2026250909842,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Field evaluation of a wearable instrumented headband designed for measuring head kinematics},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/27EZMHHD}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2509.09842}
}
read the original abstract

Purpose: To study the relationship between soccer heading and the risk of mild traumatic brain injury (mTBI), we previously developed an instrumented headband and data processing scheme to measure the angular head kinematics of soccer headers. Laboratory evaluation of the headband on an anthropomorphic test device showed good agreement with a reference sensor for soccer ball impacts to the front of the head. In this study, we evaluate the headband in measuring the full head kinematics of soccer headers in the field. Methods: The headband was evaluated under typical soccer heading scenarios (throw-ins, goal-kicks, and corner-kicks) on a human subject. The measured time history and peak kinematics from the headband were compared with those from an instrumented mouthpiece, which is a widely accepted method for measuring head kinematics in the field. Results: The time history agreement (CORA scores) between the headband and the mouthpiece ranged from 'fair' to 'excellent', with the highest agreement for angular velocities (0.79 \pm 0.08) and translational accelerations (0.73 \pm 0.05) and lowest for angular accelerations (0.67 \pm 0.06). A Bland-Altman analysis of the peak kinematics from the headband and mouthpiece found the mean bias to be 40.9% (of the maximum mouthpiece reading) for the angular velocity, 16.6% for the translational acceleration, and-14.1% for the angular acceleration. Conclusion: The field evaluation of the instrumented headband showed reasonable agreement with the mouthpiece for some kinematic measures and impact conditions. Future work should focus on improving the headband performance across all kinematic measures.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

36 extracted references · 11 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Journal of neurotrauma38(23), 3235–3247 (2021)

    Haarbauer-Krupa, J., Pugh, M.J., Prager, E.M., Harmon, N., Wolfe, J., Yaffe, K.: Epi- demiology of chronic effects of traumatic brain injury. Journal of neurotrauma38(23), 3235–3247 (2021)

    2021

  2. [2]

    Journal of the Royal Society Interface18(2021) https: //doi.org/10.1098/rsif.2021.0260

    Zhan, X., Li, Y., Liu, Y., Domel, A.G., Alizadeh, H.V., Raymond, S.J., Ruan, J., Barbat, S., Tiernan, S., Gevaert, O., Zeineh, M.M., Grant, G.A., Camarillo, D.B.: The relationship between brain injury criteria and brain strain across different types of head impacts can be different. Journal of the Royal Society Interface18(2021) https: //doi.org/10.1098/r...

    arXiv 2021

  3. [3]

    Neurosurgery53(4), 799–814 (2003) https://doi.org/10.1093/neurosurgery/53.3.799.PMID:14519212

    Pellman, E.J., Viano, D.C., Tucker, A.M., Casson, I.R., Waeckerle, J.F.: Concussion in professional football: Reconstruction of game impacts and injuries. Neurosurgery53(4), 799–814 (2003) https://doi.org/10.1093/neurosurgery/53.3.799.PMID:14519212. 16

    work page doi:10.1093/neurosurgery/53.3.799.pmid:14519212 2003

  4. [4]

    Orthopaedic Journal of Sports Medicine12(12), 23259671241303180 (2024)

    Sullivan, G.R., Lin, E.A., Hoffer, A., Richardson, M., Chhabra, A.: Pediatric concussion injuries in soccer: Emergency department trends in the united states from 2012 to 2023. Orthopaedic Journal of Sports Medicine12(12), 23259671241303180 (2024)

    2012

  5. [5]

    In: ISBS-Conference Proceedings Archive (2016)

    Karton, C., Oeur, R.A., Hoshizaki, T.B.: Measurement accuracy of head impact mon- itoring sensor in sport. In: ISBS-Conference Proceedings Archive (2016). https://api. semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:55093276

    2016

  6. [6]

    Journal of Biomechanical Engineering140(2018) https://doi.org/10.1115/1.4040311

    Buice, J.M., Esquivel, A.O., Andrecovich, C.J.: Laboratory validation of a wearable sensor for the measurement of head acceleration in men’s and women’s lacrosse. Journal of Biomechanical Engineering140(2018) https://doi.org/10.1115/1.4040311

    work page doi:10.1115/1.4040311 2018

  7. [7]

    The Asian Journal of Kinesiology20, 70–75 (2018) https: //doi.org/10.15758/ajk.2018.20.4.70

    Tiernan, S., O’Sullivan, D., Byrne, G.: Repeatability and reliability evaluation of a wireless head-band sensor. The Asian Journal of Kinesiology20, 70–75 (2018) https: //doi.org/10.15758/ajk.2018.20.4.70

    work page doi:10.15758/ajk.2018.20.4.70 2018

  8. [8]

    Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers, Part P: Journal of Sports Engineering and Technology234, 162–169 (2020) https://doi.org/10.1177/1754337120901974

    Cecchi, N.J., Monroe, D.C., Oros, T.J., Small, S.L., Hicks, J.W.: Laboratory evaluation of a wearable head impact sensor for use in water polo and land sports. Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers, Part P: Journal of Sports Engineering and Technology234, 162–169 (2020) https://doi.org/10.1177/1754337120901974

    work page doi:10.1177/1754337120901974 2020

Show all 36 references
  1. [9]

    Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers, Part P: Journal of Sports Engineering and Technology, 17543371211063124 (2021) https: //doi.org/10.1177/17543371211063124

    Patton, D.A., Huber, C.M., Douglas, E.C., Seacrist, T., Arbogast, K.B.: Laboratory assessment of a head impact sensor for youth soccer ball heading impacts using an anthropomorphic test device. Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers, Part P: Journal of Sports E...

    2021 doi

  2. [10]

    Journal of applied biomechanics26(4), 424–431 (2010) https: //doi.org/10.1123/jab.26.4.424

    Hanlon, E., Bir, C.: Validation of a wireless head acceleration measurement system for use in soccer play. Journal of applied biomechanics26(4), 424–431 (2010) https: //doi.org/10.1123/jab.26.4.424

    2010 doi

  3. [11]

    The American journal of sports medicine47(4), 974–981 (2019) https://doi.org/10.1177/0363546519826953

    Sandmo, S.B., McIntosh, A.S., Andersen, T.E., Koerte, I.K., Bahr, R.: Evaluation of an in-ear sensor for quantifying head impacts in youth soccer. The American journal of sports medicine47(4), 974–981 (2019) https://doi.org/10.1177/0363546519826953

    2019 doi

  4. [12]

    International journal of sports physical therapy12(4), 592 (2017)

    Schussler, E., Stark, D., Bolte, J.H., Kang, Y.S., Onate, J.A.: Comparison of a head mounted impact measurement device to the hybrid iii anthropomorphic testing device in a controlled laboratory setting. International journal of sports physical therapy12(4), 592 (2017)

    2017

  5. [13]

    Annals of biomedical engineering48, 2613–2625 (2020) https://doi.org/10.1007/ s10439-020-02647-1

    Kieffer, E.E., Begonia, M.T., Tyson, A.M., Rowson, S.: A two-phased approach to quantifying head impact sensor accuracy: in-laboratory and on-field assessments. Annals of biomedical engineering48, 2613–2625 (2020) https://doi.org/10.1007/ s10439-020-02647-1

    2020

  6. [14]

    Sensors21(18), 6028 (2021) https://doi.org/10

    Stitt, D., Draper, N., Alexander, K., Kabaliuk, N.: Laboratory validation of instru- mented mouthguard for use in sport. Sensors21(18), 6028 (2021) https://doi.org/10. 3390/s21186028

    2021

  7. [15]

    Annals of biomedical engineering47, 2109–2121 (2019) https://doi.org/10.1007/ s10439-019-02313-1

    Rich, A.M., Filben, T.M., Miller, L.E., Tomblin, B.T., Van Gorkom, A.R., Hurst, M.A., Barnard, R.T., Kohn, D.S., Urban, J.E., Stitzel, J.D.: Development, valida- tion and pilot field deployment of a custom mouthpiece for head impact measure- ment. Annals of biomedical engineer...

    2019

  8. [16]

    Journal of biomechanical engineering140(5) (2018) https://doi

    Miller, L.E., Kuo, C., Wu, L.C., Urban, J.E., Camarillo, D.B., Stitzel, J.D.: Validation of a custom instrumented retainer form factor for measuring linear and angular head 17 impact kinematics. Journal of biomechanical engineering140(5) (2018) https://doi. org/10.1115/1.40391...

    2018 doi

  9. [17]

    Journal of biomechanics49(9), 1845–1853 (2016) https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbiomech.2016.04.017

    Kuo, C., Wu, L.C., Hammoor, B.T., Luck, J.F., Cutcliffe, H.C., Lynall, R.C., Kait, J.R., Campbell, K.R., Mihalik, J.P., Bass, C.R.,et al.: Effect of the mandible on mouthguard measurements of head kinematics. Journal of biomechanics49(9), 1845–1853 (2016) https://doi.org/10.10...

    2016 doi

  10. [18]

    qualitative study at a public university in colombia

    Acosta-Figueroa, E.A., S´ anchez-Alfaro, L.A.: Perceptions of the mouthguard in bas- ketball, rugby, and soccer players. qualitative study at a public university in colombia. BMC sports science, medicine and rehabilitation16(1), 166 (2024)

    2024

  11. [19]

    Annals of Biomedical Engineering, 1–18 (2025)

    Tripathi, A., Wan, Y., Malave, S., Turcsanyi, S., Fawzi, A.L., Brooks, A., Kesari, H., Snedden, T., Ferrazzano, P., Franck, C., et al.: Laboratory evaluation of a wear- able instrumented headband for rotational head kinematics measurement. Annals of Biomedical Engineering, 1–18 (2025)

    2025

  12. [20]

    The American journal of sports medicine48(5), 1246–1253 (2020)

    Patton, D.A., Huber, C.M., McDonald, C.C., Margulies, S.S., Master, C.L., Arbogast, K.B.: Video confirmation of head impact sensor data from high school soccer players. The American journal of sports medicine48(5), 1246–1253 (2020)

    2020

  13. [21]

    Annals of biomedical engineering50(11), 1372–1388 (2022) https: //doi.org/10.1007/s10439-022-03001-3

    Kuo, C., Patton, D., Rooks, T., Tierney, G., McIntosh, A., Lynall, R., Esquivel, A., Daniel, R., Kaminski, T., Mihalik, J.,et al.: On-field deployment and validation for wearable devices. Annals of biomedical engineering50(11), 1372–1388 (2022) https: //doi.org/10.1007/s10439-...

    2022 doi

  14. [22]

    Annals of biomedical engineering44, 1234–1245 (2016) https://doi.org/10.1007/s10439-015-1423-3

    Wu, L.C., Nangia, V., Bui, K., Hammoor, B., Kurt, M., Hernandez, F., Kuo, C., Camar- illo, D.B.: In vivo evaluation of wearable head impact sensors. Annals of biomedical engineering44, 1234–1245 (2016) https://doi.org/10.1007/s10439-015-1423-3

    2016 doi

  15. [23]

    Journal of Biomechanics126(2021) https://doi.org/10

    Filben, T.M., Pritchard, N.S., Hanes-Romano, K.E., Miller, L.E., Miles, C.M., Urban, J.E., Stitzel, J.D.: Comparison of women’s collegiate soccer header kinematics by play state, intent, and outcome. Journal of Biomechanics126(2021) https://doi.org/10. 1016/j.jbiomech.2021.110619

    2021

  16. [24]

    Journal of applied biomechanics37(1), 36–42 (2020)

    Tomblin, B.T., Pritchard, N.S., Filben, T.M., Miller, L.E., Miles, C.M., Urban, J.E., Stitzel, J.D.: Characterization of on-field head impact exposure in youth soccer. Journal of applied biomechanics37(1), 36–42 (2020)

    2020

  17. [25]

    https://arxiv.org/abs/2508.07464

    Wan, Y., Grossman-Ponemona, B.E., Kesari, H.: Determining the acceleration field of a rigid body using three accelerometers and one gyroscope, with applications in mild traumatic brain injury (2025). https://arxiv.org/abs/2508.07464

    2025 arXiv

  18. [26]

    Journal of Applied Biomechanics38(3), 136–147 (2022)

    Milef, G.M., Miller, L.E., DiGuglielmo, D.M., Payne, T.D., Filben, T.M., Urban, J.E., Stitzel, J.D.: Head impact kinematics and brain deformation in paired opposing youth football players. Journal of Applied Biomechanics38(3), 136–147 (2022)

    2022

  19. [27]

    SAE Transactions, 359–401 (2002)

    Grenke, B.D.: Digital filtering for J211 requirements using a fast fourier transform based filter. SAE Transactions, 359–401 (2002)

    2002

  20. [28]

    Annals of Biomedical Engineering48, 2580–2598 (2020)

    Liu, Y., Domel, A.G., Yousefsani, S.A., Kondic, J., Grant, G., Zeineh, M., Camarillo, D.B.: Validation and comparison of instrumented mouthguards for measuring head kinematics and assessing brain deformation in football impacts. Annals of Biomedical Engineering48, 2580–2598 (2020)

    2020

  21. [29]

    Technical report, SAE Technical Paper (2016) 18

    Giordano, C., Kleiven, S.: Development of an unbiased validation protocol to assess the biofidelity of finite element head models used in prediction of traumatic brain injury. Technical report, SAE Technical Paper (2016) 18

    2016

  22. [30]

    Acta Neuropatho- logica133, 337–352 (2017) https://doi.org/10.1007/s00401-017-1680-3

    Ling, H., Morris, H.R., Neal, J.W., Lees, A.J., Hardy, J., Holton, J.L., Revesz, T., Williams, D.D.R.: Mixed pathologies including chronic traumatic encephalopathy account for dementia in retired association football (soccer) players. Acta Neuropatho- logica133, 337–352 (2017)...

    2017 doi

  23. [31]

    Neurology 83(24), 2307–2309 (2014) https://doi.org/10.1212/WNL.0000000000001081 https://n.neurology.org/content/83/24/2307.full.pdf

    Hales, C., Neill, S., Gearing, M., Cooper, D., Glass, J., Lah, J.: Late- stage cte pathology in a retired soccer player with dementia. Neurology 83(24), 2307–2309 (2014) https://doi.org/10.1212/WNL.0000000000001081 https://n.neurology.org/content/83/24/2307.full.pdf

    2014 doi

  24. [32]

    Annals of biomedical engineering50(12), 1750–1761 (2022)

    Thompson-Bagshaw, D.W., Quarrington, R.D., Jones, C.F.: A review of the compressive stiffness of the human head. Annals of biomedical engineering50(12), 1750–1761 (2022)

    2022

  25. [33]

    Annals of Biomedical Engineering, 1–12 (2024)

    Abrams, M.Z., Venkatraman, J., Sherman, D., Ortiz-Paparoni, M., Bercaw, J.R., Mac- Donald, R.E., Kait, J., Dimbath, E.D., Pang, D.Y., Gray, A., et al.: Biofidelity and limitations of instrumented mouthguard systems for assessment of rigid body head kinematics. Annals of Biomed...

    2024

  26. [34]

    Annals of Biomedical Engineering52(10), 2655–2665 (2024)

    Holcomb, T.D., Marks, M.E., Pritchard, N.S., Miller, L.E., Rowson, S., Bullock, G.S., Urban, J.E., Stitzel, J.D.: On-field evaluation of mouthpiece-and-helmet-mounted sen- sor data from head kinematics in football. Annals of Biomedical Engineering52(10), 2655–2665 (2024)

    2024

  27. [35]

    Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering 390, 114271 (2022) https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cma.2021.114271

    Wan, Y., Fawzi, A.L., Kesari, H.: Determining rigid body motion from accelerometer data through the square-root of a negative semi-definite tensor, with applications in mild traumatic brain injury. Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering 390, 114271 (2022) https:...

    2022

  28. [36]

    Journal of the Mechanics and Physics of Solids143, 104014 (2020) https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmps.2020.104014 19

    Rahaman, M.M., Fang, W., Fawzi, A.L., Wan, Y., Kesari, H.: An accelerometer-only algorithm for determining the acceleration field of a rigid body, with application in studying the mechanics of mild traumatic brain injury. Journal of the Mechanics and Physics of Solids143, 1040...

    2020

Pith tools

Reviewed August 4, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.